On Fr November 2 2007, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 10:36:01 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> > Imho it should be valid to have a package in F7 updates-testing with a
> > higher nevr than in F8.
>
> Why isn't the same update built also for F8?
I did not say, that the update is not built for F8, but it will be in F8
updates-testing and not in F8.
> Why do you want to limit the testing to one dist?
I want to have testing simultaneously for two dists, with a package in F-7
updates-testing and F-8 updates-testing. But then there will be no upgrade
path from F-7 updates-testing to F-8. There will be one to F-8
updatest-testing.
> > Afaik targets updates-testing at experienced users
>
> And rawhide also targets experienced users, doesn't it?
Yes and not every rpm/update in Rawhide makes it into the next stable release
and there are also rpms that are removed from rawhide without adding a newer
version afaik.
> > who are
> > willing to test packages and should be able to handle situations, where
> > there is no upgrade path to the next stable release.
>
> The fun will start when we get multiple updates-testing repositories.
> So far, F7 updates-testing has been the only one.
>
> For some time we've excluded F7 updates-testing from the upgradepath
> check, only to notice that F8 test1 got nearer and nearer with
> packagers not preparing their updates (often even version upgrades)
> for 'devel' at all. Unless it's a version upgrade, it's always
> possible to update an old dist without breaking the upgrade path
> (just increase %{release} appropriately).
Imho the only solution here is to warn the maintainer when a push to stable is
requested and this would break the upgrade path. But when there is a valid
upgrade path from F-7 updates-testing to F-8 updates-testing (but not from
F-7 to F-8), then this should not be a problem.
Regards,
Till

Attachment:
signature.ascDescription: This is a digitally signed message part.